IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id-01

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Tue, 09 December 2014 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAFCB1A89B4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:44:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ybfV74-5dQSb for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:44:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x234.google.com (mail-wg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DAB41A047A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:44:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id x12so1488257wgg.39 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:44:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=w5UsSQuXGlu4QhnFG5X/6HrOWc7d2WdO6/ut0pc2jck=; b=BiBveZM0i9d49HoTzyMaOnwsms1oGjFGwmHxaV5aJsl0d7JGPFFJszDQUx8es629Kf yFHslo08SYMyGwDXAzi9BD3hdQ5LB3Chbh4sQCYQDng3wfSEoH6O16C528COSuGKfN3x NQ+PT3dirhqR0SaTbuig77KqMxluo+6PBQEFDvjIu920KRVBvXHDCLxrZG6eGxmWgcmq HDraqIU3APxp4oSo57Ahjvwata/TodI1fScCLMUyy4HzyvNOM+Qq+d0twJ2wThycckGl iovZSoECdFJP5jwZhvLc+iBj0yP98meTg4MOuxEbPD4YCV1ZWNaZPGcWCZNzEWe3Q1BO QhBg==
X-Received: by 10.194.6.164 with SMTP id c4mr6580327wja.77.1418147040913; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:44:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.61] ([82.166.68.91]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p15sm2632296wjr.18.2014.12.09.09.43.58 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:43:59 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B70D8F95-38E9-4B9D-B912-450A989255E8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id-01
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54870E28.3010502@innovationslab.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 19:43:56 +0200
Message-Id: <08D074C0-E4E2-4E6B-AE28-34903F2B4AB6@gmail.com>
References: <CC2EE99E-475C-4DB5-9E7F-ED00B4D48561@employees.org> <86F24DAC-C017-4D09-9431-0C33134B55C2@employees.org> <5486B2E1.4050507@si6networks.com> <54870E28.3010502@innovationslab.net>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/2YFqm7H88nWAtz38iElfFnwJ3CE
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 17:44:03 -0000

Brian,

On Dec 9, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:

> Fernando,
> 
> On 12/9/14 3:29 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> 
>> * Requiring that the IP ID be unpredictable
> 
> Let's suppose that the WG decides to publish this document and makes the
> above a MUST.
> 
> When the WG decides to advance this PS RFC to IS, how do we determine if
> this critical component is implemented and interoperable?

I think that is a good point.  The text is just saying do a good job setting the field.

Personally, I would happier with this draft if it left out the update text and limited itself to recommendations on setting the field.  

Bob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email